Blog

What did Professor Hasnas mean when he claimed that the idea of the rule of law is a myth? The rule of law is a political idea that all citizens and institutions within a specific community, state, country, etc. are all under the same law, including the people who make these laws, and the leaders. It can be simplified by the statement “no one is above the law”. However, Professor Hasnas at Georgetown University Law Center claims that the rule of law is a myth. What does he mean by this? According to taylorfrancis.com, “This chapter begins with what is intended as an entertaining reprise of the main jurisprudential arguments designed to show that there is no such thing as a government of laws and not people and that the belief that there is constitutes a myth that serves to maintain the public’s support for society’s power structure.” (“This chapter” refers to Hasnas’s book Anarchy and the Law, the chapter titled The Myth of the Rule of Law.)

Professor Casey claims that the idea of political representation is an empty one. How does he defend this argument? Basically, political representation is when politicians represent the citizens and they act in the best interest of the citizens, making the citizens “present” in public policy-making processes. How does Professor Casey defend his argument that the idea of political representation is an empty idea? He once said that representation is insufficient to cover the brutal fact that despite our sophisticated modern states, the elegant rhetoric, and persuasive propaganda, some rule, and others are ruled.

Does he who pays the piper call the tune in education? Think of it this way: If you pay a piper (a musician who plays the pipe) some money to play for you, you get to call the tune, or song, that the piper plays, or at least that was how it was back then. Does this happen in education? It happens sometimes. Let me explain. In an earlier essay, I wrote about tax-supported schools. In that essay, I wrote the following: “If the government pays the institution, they get to decide what is taught and what is not taught….public schools are tax-supported, so the government decides what is taught and what is not taught.” The government (the person who pays the piper) pays the public school system (the piper) to keep them in business, however, the government tells the school system what to teach and how to teach it. Does he who pays the piper call the tune in education? For the public school system, yes, but not for private schools or homeschoolers. Private schools and homeschoolers are not paid by the government, therefore they can teach whatever they want, not what the government tells them to. In my other essay, I also wrote: “Whereas private schools are not tax-supported, so they can teach whatever they want. They do not need to ask permission from the government to teach what they want to teach. That is why private schools are incredibly better than public schools. Although there is another solution, homeschooling.” I homeschool, and it is paradise (almost).

How was the standard of living affected by the Industrial Revolution? According to Wikipedia, “Standard of living is the level of income, comforts and services available, generally applied to a society or location, rather than to an individual. Standard of living is relevant because it is considered to contribute to an individual’s quality of life.” How was the standard of living affected by the Industrial Revolution? Many people will probably say that the Industrial Revolution was a big failure and nothing really change, but that was not the case. In fact, the Industrial Revolution had many positive effects. It increased wealth, production of goods, and even the standard of living. People also had an increasing access to healthier diets, better houses, and cheaper goods. And as an added “bonus”, there was an increase in education. The Industrial Revolution was a big success.

Was the New Deal was a wise series of government actions that healed the problems afflicting the economy? Well, the New Deal did help heal the economy, and it did help the US win WWII, but I do not think that it was “wise”. According to the National Archives (.gov), “Roosevelt’s “New Deal” aimed at promoting economic recovery and putting Americans back to work through Federal activism. New Federal agencies attempted to control agricultural production, stabilize wages and prices, and create a vast public works program for the unemployed.“

Thy Lord hath saved us from certain doom,

from the British, our fierce foes,

in the battles, when cannons go boom,

when in our just fright, we froze.

 

Thy Lord hath saved us, when in our eyes,

we lost the war already,

but thy Lord will help, and we shall rise,

for you we shall be ready.

 

Thy Lord hath saved us from the British,

now we are free from our woes,

the war, with thy Lord’s help, we finished,

and we have beat our old foes.

What are the different African government successes for different African economies? There are many different examples of African governments, but I will mention two of the most well-known.

One of the worst ones was Zaire under Mobutu Sese Seko. Zaire had rich copper mines and experienced an economic boom in the 1970s with copper prices rising. Zaire became prosperous because of this. However, this wealth was absorbed by the government and mainly Mobutu. He spent enormous sums of money on monuments and palaces. He made himself one of the world’s wealthiest men. He also launched the African “authenticity” program. Basically, Africans were to replace their Christian names with African names, they could not wear Western clothing, Christmas was canceled, and Mobutu’s portraits were in all the churches. He also drove out Asian merchants and Belgian technicians and businessmen. And when copper prices fell in the 1980s, his economic boom ended. And of course he had to invite the Asian’s and Belgian’s back. He also had high price inflation. He also had high debt. In summary, this form of government was a total failure.

The other one was Kenya under Jomo Kenyatta. He did not socialize the economy, he retained capitalist incentives, he did not tax people incredibly high, Kenya did not have mineral deposits, and less than 20% of its land was suitable for farming. Yet, Kenya did much better than Zaire did. He did not tax people to death. He did not drive out Europeans, in fact, he wanted their know-how, so that Africans could learn from them and have an even more prosperous society. Tourism and foreign investment were even encouraged. There was also the one-party rule. So you can see the massive differences between these two countries.

What are some of the major arguments advanced by the Public Choice school of economics? What is the public choice theory in economics? According to Wikipedia, “Public choice refers to the behavior and process of what public goods are provided, how they are provided and distributed, and the corresponding matching rules are established. Public choice theory expects to study and influence people’s public choice processes to maximize their social utility.” What are some of the major arguments? According to Econlib, “Public choice economists make the same assumption—that although people acting in the political marketplace have some concern for others, their main motive, whether they are voters, politicians, lobbyists, or bureaucrats, is self-interest.“

What is front-loading? According to the dictionary, front-loading means to “distribute or allocate (costs, effort, etc.) unevenly, with the greater proportion at the beginning of the enterprise or process.” It basically means to over-promise what it can deliver.

What is political engineering? It is when the military (or any other organization) spreads around a project to different infirmaries to make sure the job gets done. For example, if an organization wanted to build a plane, one infirmary would build one part of the plane, another infirmary would build another part, and another infirmary would put the pieces together, forming an airplane.

What does it mean to be tax-supported? First, what are taxes? According to Wikipedia, “A tax is a compulsory financial charge or some other type of levy imposed on a taxpayer by a governmental organization in order to collectively fund government spending, public expenditures, or as a way to regulate and reduce negative externalities.” I think that being tax-supported means that an institution is supported by taxes that people pay.

Is a tax-supported school different in principle from a tax-supported church? In principle, there is no difference between tax-supported schools and churches. If the government pays the institution, they get to decide what is taught and what is not taught. My church is not tax-supported, and it is doing perfectly fine. The church does not need money from the government in order to stay there, it does fine without it. Also, public schools are tax-supported, so the government decides what is taught and what is not taught, and look at where that got them. If you are not public schooled, have you seen what kind of crap and garbage those schools are teaching? Whereas private schools are not tax-supported, so they can teach whatever they want. They do not need to ask permission from the government to teach what they want to teach. That is why private schools are incredibly better than public schools. Although there is another solution, homeschooling. You work from home, and all you need to pay for is the school. I have been homeschooling for all my life, and already I know that I am more mature than some people twice my age who went to public school all their life.

What is capitalism? According to the dictionary, capitalism is “an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.” The USA uses capitalism, for an example. What are Marx’s criticisms of capitalism? According to Econlib, “Marx condemned capitalism as a system that alienates the masses. His reasoning was as follows: although workers produce things for the market, market forces, not workers, control things. People are required to work for capitalists who have full control over the means of production and maintain power in the workplace.” He also said that capitalism will eventually destroy itself. That is not how I see it. I do not think capitalism alienates the masses, in fact, I think it helps the masses. And I do not think capitalism could destroy itself. He thought that capitalism would alienate the workers so the workers would overthrow the owners and take control themselves. This only takes place if the workers do not enjoy the working conditions or pay they get for working, but even then, why don’t they just leave and find another job? And this is not the case for all workers. Some workers could really enjoy their job. I do not think capitalism could destroy itself.

What Is To Be Done is a novel written by Vladimir Lenin. According to Wikipedia, “In What Is to Be Done?, Lenin argues that the working class will not spontaneously become political simply by fighting economic battles with employers over wages, working hours, and the like.” As you can probably already tell, the target audience were the workers.

What was the New Economic Policy? According to Britannica, “The New Economic Policy reintroduced a measure of stability to the economy and allowed the Soviet people to recover from years of war, civil war, and governmental mismanagement. The small businessmen and managers who flourished in this period became known as NEP men.” This policy was a huge success in creating an economic recovery after World War I, the Russian Revolution, and the Russian Civil War.

What was the Ukrainian terror-famine? According to Wikipedia, “The Holodomor, also known as the Great Ukrainian Famine, was a man-made famine in Soviet Ukraine from 1932 to 1933 that killed millions of Ukrainians. The Holodomor was part of the wider Soviet famine of 1930–1933 which affected the major grain-producing areas of the Soviet Union.” About 28,000 people died every day. This famine was horrific. Ethnic discrimination, and lack of favored industries was what caused this devastating famine.

The primary values of fascism. What is fascism? According to World101, “Many experts agree that fascism is a mass political movement that emphasizes extreme nationalism, militarism, and the supremacy of both the nation and the single, powerful leader over the individual citizen.” That doesn’t sound good. What are the primary values of fascism? According to Wikipedia, “Common themes among fascist movements include: authoritarianism, nationalism (including racial nationalism), hierarchy and elitism, and militarism. Other aspects of fascism such as perception of decadence, anti-egalitarianism and totalitarianism can be seen to originate from these ideas.” Fascism is not a good thing, as you can just see from these values. Nations that used fascism include Germany, China, Brazil, Austria, France, Greece, and many others.

What was life like for the businessman in Nazi Germany? One thing is that they lived in a socialist society under Hitler. According to the dictionary, socialism is “a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.” Socialism is a terrible thing. It never works. There was price control, which means that the government decides what can be sold for a specific amount of money. Business found a way to get around this, but then the government found out. Government officials dressed like normal people then go to these businessmen and try to get them to violate the laws and see if they do. There was also the lowering of product quality to cope with price controls. There was no free market in Germany. The economy was just a huge mess.

What is the idea of a “living Constitution”? What does it mean to have a “living constitution?” A “living constitution” means that the constitution considered to be living can be changed. This is not a solid constitution. If people can change the law to fit today’s standards, that constitution is not a solid foundation for a government. If people can change the law nilly willy, how do you know what the law is? And people can change the law to fit their standards, and not the standards of other people. Now, if somebody wanted to change the law, they would have to get permission from most of the states, but they can still change it. A man named Kevin Gutzman once said “the “living, breathing” Constitution is actually a dead Constitution.” The idea of a Constitution that can just change with the time is dead. How can a dead Constitution protect your liberties?

What is nullification? According to Wikipedia, “Nullification, in United States constitutional history, is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal laws which they deem unconstitutional with respect to the United States Constitution. There are similar theories that any officer, jury, or individual may do the same.” So nullification is an act people can do to point out if they think that a law, etc. does not go with the Constitution.

Is there anyone you think is more of the archetypal American than Franklin? What is an archetypal? According to the dictionary, an archetypal is “a very typical example of a certain person or thing.” Why is Benjamin Franklin considered an archetypal American? It was because he was industrious. According to Bartleby, “He was industrious. Franklin continually put forth the idea of the industrious American. He had support from the middle-class who did not care if he was rich but he was a man who was self-made and worked hard. This American attitude was formed early and most of it by him.” He was considered an archetypal American because of his beliefs on self-improvement, religion, determination, and even somewhat of his sort of prideful spirit. At a young age, he found an interest in reading and writing, so he began printing. He was sort of an amateur in this profession of his. However, he showed much promise in this. He never gave up on trying to achieve his life goals. This man is worth modeling yourself after. This is why he is a perfect model of an archetypal American. I do not think that anyone could be more of an archetypal American than Benjamin Franklin. This is why:

Why do I think that Franklin is the perfect example of an archetypal American? He was a middle class person who did not care about being rich. He did not care about having a lot of money. This is a good trait to have. You should not care about being rich or having a lot of money, but you should focus on the important things. He was also self-made. Now, what does it mean to be self-made? According to Wikipedia, “A “self-made man” is a person whose success is of their own making. In the intellectual and cultural history of the United States, the idea of the self-made man as an archetype or cultural ideal looms large, but has been criticized by some as a myth or cult.” Your success is of your own doing. Do not ask other people do do things for you, do it yourself and you will become a better person. Franklin was also a hard worker. Now this is important. If you want to do things in life, you need to work hard for it. Franklin never gave up trying to achieve his life goals, and neither should you. If you hit an obstacle, remove it or work around it. I am absolutely sure that Franklin met several obstacles in his time, and knowing his position when he died, I assume that he defeated the obstacles. He never gave up reaching for his life goals, and neither should you. Franklin was also industrious. What does it mean to be industrious? It means to be diligent, to work hard. This is what Franklin was best at. Franklin is the perfect model of an archetypal American, and I do not think that anybody could be better at that than him.